The Budget and Accounting Act of 1921 requires the president of the United States to submit a budget proposal to Congress for each fiscal year. Congress isn’t required to honor that proposal. In fact its budget resolutions and actual appropriations seldom reflect presidents’ requests very closely. But there are always fireworks over the request anyway.

President Donald Trump’s proposed budget for FY2018 calls for a 13% ($9 billion) cut to the US Department of Education versus 2017’s discretionary funding.

That may sound like a big big hit to your kids’ schools, and the usual suspects would like you to think it constitutes a gutting of “public” (read: government) education in America, but there are a few things to keep in mind when thinking about it.

First of all, according to the National Center for Education Statistics, total government spending (at all levels) on elementary and secondary education in the US came to $634 billion for the 2013-2014 academic year. Additionally, Americans spent $517 billion on postsecondary education, the bulk of it through government, that year.

Keeping in mind that those numbers have likely gone up, not down, in the intervening years, and that state and local spending will probably continue to increase, a 13% cut to the US Department of Education would in reality be at most a reduction of only eight tenths of one percent in total US education spending. Calling that a tempest in a teapot demeans tempests and teapots. This disturbance is more like dropping a grain of salt in a shot glass.

Secondly, there’s a good case to be made that federal education spending cancels out any positive effects of state and local spending rather than boosting them. As former New Mexico governor and Libertarian presidential candidate Gary Johnson notes, “[t]he Department of Education grants each state 11 cents out of every dollar it spends on education. Unfortunately, every dollar of this money comes with 16 cents of strings attached. States that accept federal funding lose five cents for every dollar spent on education to pay for federal mandates and regulations, taking millions of dollars out of the classroom.” And don’t forget that that 11 cents started out as a 13 cent deduction from your paycheck.

Finally, although the federal government spends more than twice as much per student on education today as it did when the department was created in 1980, student performance remains, at best, stagnant.

After 40 nearly years, it’s reasonable to conclude that the US Department of Education is a failed experiment. Its budget should be cut by 100% — turn out the lights, send the bureaucrats home, sell the buildings and equipment — not by a mere 13%.

But we know that’s not going to happen, don’t we? This isn’t about education. It’s about politics. It’s not about teaching kids to read and write and calculate. It’s about buying votes from special interests with taxpayer dollars . I predict that the department’s FY2018 budget will be larger, not smaller, than its FY2017 budget.

If we want decent educations for our children, the solution is complete separation of school and state.

Thomas L. Knapp (Twitter: @thomaslknapp) is director and senior news analyst at the William Lloyd Garrison Center for Libertarian Advocacy Journalism (thegarrisoncenter.org). He lives and works in north central Florida. He is director and senior news analyst at the William Lloyd Garrison Center for Libertarian Advocacy Journalism (thegarrisoncenter.org).

2 Responses to The Federal Education Budget: Teapot, Meet Tempest

Things haven’t changed in over 50 years. I am a retired employee of The Los Angeles Unified School District, and I remember when the “Federal” Department of Education was created. The argument then against a DOE was that for every dollar sent to D.C. a State, for instance California, would receive 10 cents back.

All States, in my opinion, would see an increase in their education funding if they just kept their tax dollars in their respective States and close down the Federal DOE.

When radio star Jenny Reed of KKTM-FM is forced to co-host with “The Voice” of charismatic Johnny King, the airwaves of Los Angeles ignite. In a business drowning in testosterone, Red Wine for Breakfast is the story of strong, determined New Yorker who has to shake off the laid-back attitude of LA to overcome the challenges of an industry that threatens to turn her off and a man who only wants to turn her on.

CHALLENGE THE WIND is a powerful American revolutionary War tale that dispenses a deep look at the impact of war on a family and those who come into their circle. The novel captures the souls of the audience through its powerful characterizations. However, the key to this strong historical story is the underlying theme that no matter how noble the cause war is hell on not just the combatants, but the loved ones waiting behind for news that those they cherish still live.

Ad Space Available

Advertisements

This Space Available (Footer, Right) advertising@citizensjournal.us

Space Available

CHALLENGE THE WIND

CHALLENGE THE WIND is a powerful American revolutionary War tale that dispenses a deep look at the impact of war on a family and those who come into their circle. The novel captures the souls of the audience through its powerful characterizations. However, the key to this strong historical story is the underlying theme that no matter how noble the cause war is hell on not just the combatants, but the loved ones waiting behind for news that those they cherish still live.